This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Maka
21
« on: August 11, 2015, 02:42:36 AM »
I made a couple entries tonight, and will send them in a minute.
I very little experience with DSL, and even less with IRL, so this should be interesting.
22
« on: August 10, 2015, 03:10:35 PM »
Here's my latest design. It's not exactly refined and finished, but I'm posting it anyway because I've just about had it with editing the chassis over and over. It's just tedious trial and error, and I think my time would be better spent doing something like making a bot for BoTM or a tournament. I'd still like to know what everyone thinks about the overall design. 
23
« on: August 09, 2015, 10:28:08 PM »
Your focus should basically be to make the top set of chassis points smaller and the bottom set larger. Make it as shallow as possible while keeping a decent amount of weapons/drive/battery power.
Reminder that things like batteries and that snapper 2 can fit inside of wedges to a certain extent.
I was trying to make the lower part as big as I could, but I had to slim it down since it kept coming up over weight. I tried to arrange all the components (except the control board) so they would all fit under the flat part of the chassis. The idea was to do that so I could make it as low as possible which would hopefully make the wedge more effective and make it less susceptible to horizontal spinners and rammers. Of course, I couldn't get the chassis to the right height so after around ten tries I gave up and decided to finish it anyway. I'm just gonna trash the current design and start from scratch.
24
« on: August 09, 2015, 08:23:05 PM »
I tried really hard. sort-of I can't remember what font I used for the splashes. RIP
25
« on: August 09, 2015, 05:02:48 PM »
Is Sage in the chatterbox group?
26
« on: August 09, 2015, 12:59:19 PM »
I was browsing /a/ like any filthy weaboo would and found this gif:  I have no idea where it's from, but it made me think of Sage. It might be a good avatar if he's sick of his old one.
27
« on: February 22, 2015, 07:29:50 AM »
I'm suffering a from a bit of builder's block. Could anyone name a weight class and robot type for my next showcase bot?
This isn't really the place to say that, but okay.
I was going to post it in my showcase but IMO showcases are more about showing your actual robots and not just random blogging. If people would rather see that sort of thing in my showcase then I could post it there from now on. How about a hammer in any weight class?
Well that's... interesting. I wonder if I can somehow re-invent the hammer...
28
« on: February 22, 2015, 06:31:26 AM »
I'm suffering a from a bit of builder's block. Could anyone name a weight class and robot type for my next showcase bot?
Just don't say LW popup please, I've been trying to do that for the past week while I've been sick and got nowhere.
29
« on: February 13, 2015, 11:31:39 AM »
Instead of quoting everyone I'm just going to bullet my points here... - Trov glitch can be fine from a realistic building standpoint, I understand that. The reason I prohibited it was because of it crashing games on high settings etc. Also, what constitutes a realistic chassis thickness is just too subjective IMO.
- Perhaps being entirely destructible isn't prohibited in DSL-S, but this isn't my re-wording of DSL-S. This is what I think a standard set of rules for realistic robots ought to be. I'd probably have to re-word this one though do to the use of things like those plates which bolt on to the bottom of the chassis (the name of which is escaping me). Either way, I am not outright banning the use of indestructible parts on the chassis, just uses of such parts for armor (which I'm still not crazy about since, again, it leaves some room for subjectivity).
- I banned DSA because I didn't like the idea of an unrealistically strong armor that basically has the benefits of both light and heavy armor. The idea was to prevent people from using blatantly unbalanced armor (even if it isn't that great in DSL).
- If BFE is usually banned from tournaments, then I figured it'd make sense to have it banned in the standard ruleset. That way, the only time anyone would have to mention it is in the rare occasion that it is allowed in a tournament.
30
« on: February 13, 2015, 04:07:49 AM »
So I heard about this on the GCT thread, and I was a bit skeptical. ...I really don't feel like re-stating what I've already said, so since I doubt most of you even go to the chatterbox I'll just paste in a quote of what I had to say: Battlebots coming to abc.http://deadline.com/2015/02/battlebots-revival-reality-series-abc-summer-1201367663/
I'm not feeling too good about this. It immediately brings to mind that Discovery special which, in typical Discovery network fashion, was 90% reality TV, story-time bullsh*t and only 10% actual robot combat (with said combat footage consisting only of a random mish-mash of short clips from the fight).
Aside from it being labeled as a "reality" show (which is usually an ill omen in and of itself), this particular quote seems to affirm my suspicions:
The show also will have a greater emphasis on the design and build elements of each robot, the bot builder backstories, their intense pursuit of the championship and the spectacle of the event.
Perhaps it being aired on ABC as opposed to Discovery will spare it from the same "reality TV" treatment that the Discovery special got, but I'm not holding out hope for this show. At least that way, if it does somehow turn out to be good, I can be pleasantly surprised.
31
« on: February 13, 2015, 03:57:37 AM »
So earlier I was reading the DSL-S rules and took it upon myself to rewrite them not only to look better, but to be better organized (more concise with less repetitions). As I got into writing it though, I came across a few issues I had with it. I started adding rules and making assumptions based on what I thought ought to be in a standardized set of rules for realistic robot building (not just for DSL either - it's not like we only build realistic robots in DSL). So I figured I'd post my interpretation here. I'd like to see what everyone thinks about it, and if anyone thinks any of the current rules should be looked at based on my suggestions.
Realistic standard robots are intended to emulate robots that are capable of physically being built (regardless of the time or resources required to do so). Realistic standard robots must adhere to the following guidelines or any unstated restrictions that creating a physically constructible robot implies.A realistic standard robot...- must have a control board and at least one battery.
- cannot be built to exploit Havok glitches (excluding chicken drills) or any other kind of game-breaking glitches. These include, but are not limited to:
- trinity
- nasty pickle
- rupting
- Trovaner chassis
- must be built entirely in the botlab under legitimate conditions. Prohibited building methods include, but are not limited to:
- bot-file editing (BFE)
- advanced attachment method (AAM)
- hax mode
- must be built from the chassis up. All components must be physically connect to the chassis by way of extenders and end in some chassis mount (motor, baseplate mount, or otherwise).
- must be entirely destructible. Use of indestructible parts (such as casters or skirt mounts) as armor is prohibited.
- must use realistic armor. A robot cannot be armored with double-strength aluminum (DSA).
A component may intersect...- some of the chassis.
- other components that do not move relative to it.
A component may NOT intersect...- any kind of mechanical component (any component capable of allowing movement relative to the chassis), power source, control board, or baseplate mount.
- an unrealistic portion of the chassis (ie: a disc that divides the chassis into two completely separate, physically unconnectable pieces).
- any component that can move relative to it (ie: a component mounted on another motor or baseplate anchor).
- components that are perfectly or near perfectly stacked inside of it.
If anyone wants me to elaborate on any of these rules or why I chose them, I'll gladly do so.
32
« on: February 13, 2015, 01:41:25 AM »
bigger chassis = more HP
Well this is new to me. Bigger in what way? Surface area? Volume? LxW?
33
« on: February 12, 2015, 08:40:20 PM »
I decided to move out of my comfort zone and build something I hate building... a popup.  I have no idea what constitutes a good popup, so it's a bit rough. I didn't want to spend the time trimming the chassis over and over to add a fifth razor just to find out the design was utter crap. Either way I'm not too satisfied with it, but perhaps that's just because I hate working with wedge chassis (way too spacialy inefficient for my liking).
34
« on: February 08, 2015, 05:12:16 PM »
Well I'm not expecting a great deal of success with this one since I have little experience in Ironforge...
It's worth a try all the same I guess.
35
« on: February 07, 2015, 07:29:31 PM »
Battlebots coming to abc.http://deadline.com/2015/02/battlebots-revival-reality-series-abc-summer-1201367663/
I'm not feeling too good about this. It immediately brings to mind that Discovery special which, in typical Discovery network fashion, was 90% reality TV, story-time bullsh*t and only 10% actual robot combat (with said combat footage consisting only of a random mish-mash of short clips from the fight). Aside from it being labeled as a "reality" show (which is usually an ill omen in and of itself), this particular quote seems to affirm my suspicions: The show also will have a greater emphasis on the design and build elements of each robot, the bot builder backstories, their intense pursuit of the championship and the spectacle of the event. Perhaps it being aired on ABC as opposed to Discovery will spare it from the same "reality TV" treatment that the Discovery special got, but I'm not holding out hope for this show. At least that way, if it does somehow turn out to be good, I can be pleasantly surprised.
36
« on: February 04, 2015, 01:54:11 AM »
Since the BOTM thread seems to have all but died, here's some more info on my entry:  Yeah that bit about the turning wasn't advertised obviously. Whenever I tried to turn it the conventional way (two wheels spinning one way, the other two spinning the opposite) it just sat still. If I just made one pair of wheels drive forward, it behaved normally and could turn. I have no idea why it did that, and I was already cramming the robot in past the due date, so I never properly sorted it out.
37
« on: February 02, 2015, 04:49:01 PM »
Hey kids, want some money? Write an article for SERVO. I got enough cash to seriously consider making a sportsman for franklin.
I'll write an article explaining why the general public couldn't give a sh** less about robot combat anymore.
The sport never got a real following because is was never really made out to be a serious sport by any of the big shows. Instead it was sold as some sort of a novelty. British Robot Wars was definitely the bigger offender of the two big shows (for obvious reasons), but Battlebots had its kinks too (cutting out fights they thought were boring, sound effects, Pam Anderson's tits, etc).
38
« on: February 01, 2015, 08:20:44 PM »
This tourney is amazing.
S2 when?
39
« on: February 01, 2015, 04:17:56 PM »
Damn... lost by two votes.
40
« on: January 30, 2015, 04:59:15 PM »
So I think I sent a robot in. It's not showing up on my sent messages so if it didn't go through let me know and I'll try it again.
Did you check 'Save a copy in my outbox'? If not, that's probably why it isn't there.
No I didn't, I'll try it again. Edit:Oh wow I think I forgot to check the box again. He might get three inbox messages.
|
Show Posts